The editors choose what gets posted. Slashdot has historically been a very pro-Google website, and there is plenty of dirt posted on its competitors every week. Google's antitrust concerns are real news.
You claim there is Google-bashing "every second article," but there hasn't been. The previous Google stories have been about services that Google cut off. That's just news.
You didn't refute anything at all in the linked articles. Your strategy to attack the submitter and dismiss the submission outright simply because it has negative news about a company you like is so sycophantic that it's almost disgusting, as is the fact you got +5 Informative for it. For every "Googlebashing troll" on Slashdot, there are 50 fanboys, so let's not get all uppity and demand that Slashdot filter its story publishing just to fit your ideal worldview.
There's a book by Roger L. Martin called Fixing The Game which argues that the problem with large businesses today is that they are focused on the expectation market--maximizing shareholder value--as opposed to the real market--making good products and increasing customer satisfaction. For example, Enron was so focused on shareholder value that they manipulated revenues to increase stock price, while Apple was so focused on products that Steve Jobs was infamously dismissive the importance of his company's shareholders and joked that the one thing that kept him up at night was shareholder meetings.
They are empty by design. That way, when a handicapped person drives up he can find a place to park. They wouldn't be very useful to handicapped people if they were always full.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Like others, you probably didn't watch the linked video. The ADA mandates that the larger a business is, the more handicapped parking spots they must provide, leading to empty handicapped parking spots all over the place. If the government wasn't regulating these parking spots, businesses would provide their own specialized parking to attract customers, and it would be matched to the number of handicapped customers they're actually receiving.
Wait, you think that the phenomenon of empty parking places for the handicapped is "something to think about"? Really? These are the things you think about?
Absolutely. Especially when the most prolific computer book author in the industry, who is also handicapped, argues against them (again, you obviously didn't watch the video). Government-manded compassion always causes trouble. For example, employment of the handicapped dropped sharply after the passing of the ADA, and the definition of "disabled" is so fuzzy that it includes things like having trouble managing your finances--that's how the American government comes up with the figure of 50,000,000 disabled.
But I understand that it's much easier to rely on superficial responses, such as accusing someone of thinking about empty parking places with the tired "Really?" forum cliche, rather than thinking about the ramifications of the legislation behind those spaces.
There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.
You obviously didn't watch the linked video, and neither did moderators. My point wasn't that people should park in handicapped spots. It's that the ADA mandates those spots, and the larger the business, the more spots are required, leaving empty handicapped spots all over the place. There is no need for that kind of flat regulation because a business will provide its own spots to attract more customers, and if a business sees that most of the spots are empty most of the time, they can adjust the number of them to cater to the customer base they're receiving.
What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.
One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.
For non-techies, a curated software store is the middle-ground. It's third-party software you are free to choose from but vetted by the vendor, which filters a lot of potential problems. The mass deregulation represented by the Android third-party software platform is itself a black-and-white position, often argued for from a freedom perspective. Going back to your post, what if the person you give the freedom to is maliciously tricked into killing themselves? Just as we have an FDA to regulate food, and we have regulatory agencies for other industries, there is value in standards and quality control for software applications. We even have comment moderation on Slashdot to prevent the inevitable degeneration of discussions into a cesspool.
Operating system is a vague term that necessarily changes over time as the default software distributions that ship with computers change in scope. Even Wikipedia defines Linux to be a "UNIX-like computer operating system," and even if you disagree with that, the FLOSS qualifier in the post you're replying to refers to the rest of the software suite that most would consider to be the operating system, in the same way the term GNU/Linux does.
Damn, man, if you'd bothered to run Linux/FLOSS all this time, you could have just fscking ignored the whole malware situation entirely, as I've been able to FOR THE LAST TWO DECADES!
What operating system do you think Android is running on?
I always believed that the day antivirus software becomes a universally accepted requirement the way it is on Windows is the day the platform has failed and missed the whole point of mobile operating systems. The point is to get away from the big mess of the desktop--the constant maintenance, driver updates, antivirus updates, defragmenters, and other utilities. Mobile operating systems are an opportunity to use a computer just to get things done, not to maintain the computer. That's what was so refreshing about the experience of the using the iPad and why it was such a surprise success to everyone including me.
Another day, another Google service bites the dust. At this rate, they're set to outdo Microsoft in the number of obsoleted APIs and services that they use to pull the rug out from under people. And why shouldn't they? We're not the customers. Advertisers are, and if a service isn't helping Google's advertisers, they're not interested in keeping it around.
The advise we've always given to the computer user community is 'don't click a link in an email if you don't know who it's from or where it goes' — so how do we protect unsuspecting users from QR codes, where you can't see the destination at all?
Tell them not to visit random QR codes? They're dumb and ugly anyway (the QR codes, that is!).
This is a very good policy to keep up the atmosphere in G+ and not deteriote so a myspace or facebook.
And who doesn't love an atmosphere of censorship and intrusiveness? Don't you dare flip anyone off or use a pseudonym! The all-important advertisers don't like it!
Here is the original Verge article that the submitted link is based on. Looks like Gizmag literally just took the Verge's information and reworded it to avoid plagiarism, but it's all the exact same information and about the same length. Even the photo is the same, just slightly cropped to look different.
Many took this as charity, and for the purpose of advancing the web.
Which is absurd. Chrome and Firefox are competing for the same users. Chrome helps Google display ads by directing users to Google services, such as with searches in the address bar. Google and Mozilla are competitors. Remember, you are the product, and advertisers are Google's customers.
David Ulevitch, founder of OpenDNS, had a more likely hypothesis, which is that Google is protecting itself from increased antitrust scrutiny. Remember that they often display a message on Google.com trying to convince people to download Chrome. Along with Android, Google needs to appear like it's not too dominant.
Peter Kasting at Google posted a response, but it focused on claims about Google killing Firefox and didn't actually contradict Ulevitch's thesis on why they paid so much to be Firefox's default search provider. Firefox usage is falling because of Chrome, so it's not like Mozilla (a non-profit) is best pals with Google (a for-profit, multibillion-dollar advertising megacorp). And Mozilla has questioned Google's motives in the past over their refusal to implement Do Not Track in Chrome when all the other major browsers committed to it.
It's like how Microsoft keeps releasing Office for Mac and various other utilities to make sure the Mac is out there just enough to keep antitrust regulators off its back.
Did you really compare this to slavery? And do you really think they willingly hired someone with the knowledge that he shit-talks customers? Come on, now.
I'm totally shocked that the "founder of the first Pirate Party" hates corporate software. Shocked, I tell you. Maybe Slashdot could also get Steve Ballmer to write some anti-Linux essays.
This guy's very existence is a conflation of free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer, a difference that used to be important enough around here that posters would go out of their way to point it out. But today, we're in such an absurd situation that we're seeing essays from the Pirate Party on the front page. How can people be expected to take a group with such a name seriously?
Slashdot Mirror
It is if you're a monopoly. Microsoft got into the same trouble over Internet Explorer in the 1990s.
The editors choose what gets posted. Slashdot has historically been a very pro-Google website, and there is plenty of dirt posted on its competitors every week. Google's antitrust concerns are real news.
You claim there is Google-bashing "every second article," but there hasn't been. The previous Google stories have been about services that Google cut off. That's just news.
You didn't refute anything at all in the linked articles. Your strategy to attack the submitter and dismiss the submission outright simply because it has negative news about a company you like is so sycophantic that it's almost disgusting, as is the fact you got +5 Informative for it. For every "Googlebashing troll" on Slashdot, there are 50 fanboys, so let's not get all uppity and demand that Slashdot filter its story publishing just to fit your ideal worldview.
I linked to the iTunes Preview web page because the full description is right at the top unlike Amazon, ya psycho.
There's a book by Roger L. Martin called Fixing The Game which argues that the problem with large businesses today is that they are focused on the expectation market--maximizing shareholder value--as opposed to the real market--making good products and increasing customer satisfaction. For example, Enron was so focused on shareholder value that they manipulated revenues to increase stock price, while Apple was so focused on products that Steve Jobs was infamously dismissive the importance of his company's shareholders and joked that the one thing that kept him up at night was shareholder meetings.
Like others, you probably didn't watch the linked video. The ADA mandates that the larger a business is, the more handicapped parking spots they must provide, leading to empty handicapped parking spots all over the place. If the government wasn't regulating these parking spots, businesses would provide their own specialized parking to attract customers, and it would be matched to the number of handicapped customers they're actually receiving.
Absolutely. Especially when the most prolific computer book author in the industry, who is also handicapped, argues against them (again, you obviously didn't watch the video). Government-manded compassion always causes trouble. For example, employment of the handicapped dropped sharply after the passing of the ADA, and the definition of "disabled" is so fuzzy that it includes things like having trouble managing your finances--that's how the American government comes up with the figure of 50,000,000 disabled.
But I understand that it's much easier to rely on superficial responses, such as accusing someone of thinking about empty parking places with the tired "Really?" forum cliche, rather than thinking about the ramifications of the legislation behind those spaces.
You obviously didn't watch the linked video, and neither did moderators. My point wasn't that people should park in handicapped spots. It's that the ADA mandates those spots, and the larger the business, the more spots are required, leaving empty handicapped spots all over the place. There is no need for that kind of flat regulation because a business will provide its own spots to attract more customers, and if a business sees that most of the spots are empty most of the time, they can adjust the number of them to cater to the customer base they're receiving.
Penn & Teller did a Bullshit! episode on handicapped parking that's pretty interesting. As with all Bullshit! episodes, it's full of profanity, if that offends you.
One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.
For non-techies, a curated software store is the middle-ground. It's third-party software you are free to choose from but vetted by the vendor, which filters a lot of potential problems. The mass deregulation represented by the Android third-party software platform is itself a black-and-white position, often argued for from a freedom perspective. Going back to your post, what if the person you give the freedom to is maliciously tricked into killing themselves? Just as we have an FDA to regulate food, and we have regulatory agencies for other industries, there is value in standards and quality control for software applications. We even have comment moderation on Slashdot to prevent the inevitable degeneration of discussions into a cesspool.
Operating system is a vague term that necessarily changes over time as the default software distributions that ship with computers change in scope. Even Wikipedia defines Linux to be a "UNIX-like computer operating system," and even if you disagree with that, the FLOSS qualifier in the post you're replying to refers to the rest of the software suite that most would consider to be the operating system, in the same way the term GNU/Linux does.
Damn, man, if you'd bothered to run Linux/FLOSS all this time, you could have just fscking ignored the whole malware situation entirely, as I've been able to FOR THE LAST TWO DECADES!
What operating system do you think Android is running on?
I always believed that the day antivirus software becomes a universally accepted requirement the way it is on Windows is the day the platform has failed and missed the whole point of mobile operating systems. The point is to get away from the big mess of the desktop--the constant maintenance, driver updates, antivirus updates, defragmenters, and other utilities. Mobile operating systems are an opportunity to use a computer just to get things done, not to maintain the computer. That's what was so refreshing about the experience of the using the iPad and why it was such a surprise success to everyone including me.
Another day, another Google service bites the dust. At this rate, they're set to outdo Microsoft in the number of obsoleted APIs and services that they use to pull the rug out from under people. And why shouldn't they? We're not the customers. Advertisers are, and if a service isn't helping Google's advertisers, they're not interested in keeping it around.
Tell them not to visit random QR codes? They're dumb and ugly anyway (the QR codes, that is!).
I've been out-stupided for the last time! *shakes fist*
And who doesn't love an atmosphere of censorship and intrusiveness? Don't you dare flip anyone off or use a pseudonym! The all-important advertisers don't like it!
Don't give him any more publicity. This interview is weird, profanity-laden, and arrogant. The douchebag loves attention and "connections".
Hi, NicknameOne!
Here is the original Verge article that the submitted link is based on. Looks like Gizmag literally just took the Verge's information and reworded it to avoid plagiarism, but it's all the exact same information and about the same length. Even the photo is the same, just slightly cropped to look different.
It's been nothing but upmods today, NicknameOne. So thanks, I guess?
I'll spend it in the Y2K vault I built the last time the world ended.
They're vying for the same web users. Chrome has been gaining share at Firefox's expense, so by what definition are they not competitors?
Literally 97% of Google's revenue comes from web advertising. They're not a search company; the search engine is just one of many mechanisms for displaying ads.
Which is absurd. Chrome and Firefox are competing for the same users. Chrome helps Google display ads by directing users to Google services, such as with searches in the address bar. Google and Mozilla are competitors. Remember, you are the product, and advertisers are Google's customers.
David Ulevitch, founder of OpenDNS, had a more likely hypothesis, which is that Google is protecting itself from increased antitrust scrutiny. Remember that they often display a message on Google.com trying to convince people to download Chrome. Along with Android, Google needs to appear like it's not too dominant.
Peter Kasting at Google posted a response, but it focused on claims about Google killing Firefox and didn't actually contradict Ulevitch's thesis on why they paid so much to be Firefox's default search provider. Firefox usage is falling because of Chrome, so it's not like Mozilla (a non-profit) is best pals with Google (a for-profit, multibillion-dollar advertising megacorp). And Mozilla has questioned Google's motives in the past over their refusal to implement Do Not Track in Chrome when all the other major browsers committed to it.
It's like how Microsoft keeps releasing Office for Mac and various other utilities to make sure the Mac is out there just enough to keep antitrust regulators off its back.
Did you really compare this to slavery? And do you really think they willingly hired someone with the knowledge that he shit-talks customers? Come on, now.
I'm totally shocked that the "founder of the first Pirate Party" hates corporate software. Shocked, I tell you. Maybe Slashdot could also get Steve Ballmer to write some anti-Linux essays.
This guy's very existence is a conflation of free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer, a difference that used to be important enough around here that posters would go out of their way to point it out. But today, we're in such an absurd situation that we're seeing essays from the Pirate Party on the front page. How can people be expected to take a group with such a name seriously?